Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
Increase exposure One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely not...
Answer
#5: Post edited
by
klutt
·
2022-02-08T20:28:37Z (about 2 years ago)
- ### Increase exposure
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- ### Improve technical stuff
- Sure, there are very few people who joins a forum because it has such amazing features. I'm not saying that this should be the primary selling point. But there are two types of improvements that I believe is quite important.
- 1. Features that are common on other forums that new user will miss when they come here. Sure, we don't need to implement everything, but we should definitely make sure that nothing is missing.
- 2. Existing features that just feel clunky and more of a prototype for a feature than a final implementation.
- For example, the comment thread system feels very clunky. I love the idea, but it doesn't feel very well executed. It could be that I'm not used to it though.
- ### We should have used the leverage of the Monica incident (too late now)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
- ### Increase exposure
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- ### Improve technical stuff
- Sure, there are very few people who joins a forum because it has such amazing features. I'm not saying that this should be the primary selling point. But there are two types of improvements that I believe is quite important.
- 1. Features that are common on other forums that new user will miss when they come here. Sure, we don't need to implement everything, but we should definitely make sure that nothing is missing.
- 2. Existing features that just feel clunky and more of a prototype for a feature than a final implementation.
- For example, the comment thread system feels very clunky. I love the idea, but it doesn't feel very well executed. It could be that I'm not used to it though.
- ### We should have used the leverage of the Monica incident (too late now)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
- ### Focus on being a community
- SO is not really a community. And I think that's a bit sad sometimes. I think that's one thing where we could get an edge. A suggestion is to make it a little bit of a mix between a Q/A forum and a social network. A few suggestions:
- - Personal blog with commenting features and have a separate category for that besides Q&A, Code reviews and Meta.
- - Discussion forums. Let's face it. This Q&A form is not especially good for discussions. There was a forum before Codidact launched for discussing how everything should be here. Maybe that could be brought back in some way?
#4: Post edited
by
klutt
·
2022-02-04T21:21:53Z (about 2 years ago)
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
- ### Increase exposure
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- ### Improve technical stuff
- Sure, there are very few people who joins a forum because it has such amazing features. I'm not saying that this should be the primary selling point. But there are two types of improvements that I believe is quite important.
- 1. Features that are common on other forums that new user will miss when they come here. Sure, we don't need to implement everything, but we should definitely make sure that nothing is missing.
- 2. Existing features that just feel clunky and more of a prototype for a feature than a final implementation.
- For example, the comment thread system feels very clunky. I love the idea, but it doesn't feel very well executed. It could be that I'm not used to it though.
- ### We should have used the leverage of the Monica incident (too late now)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
#3: Post edited
by
klutt
·
2022-02-04T17:21:08Z (about 2 years ago)
One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer on SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
#2: Post edited
by
klutt
·
2022-02-04T17:10:08Z (about 2 years ago)
One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on the SE-network. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
- One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering other forums. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433)
- I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that.
- But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.
#1: Initial revision
by
klutt
·
2022-02-04T17:07:29Z (about 2 years ago)
One way of increasing our exposure is to use Codidact as a source when answering on the SE-network. As long as we are treating Codidact as any other source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I did that with [this answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/70927826/6699433) I think it was a mistake to spend so much time of deciding exactly how codidact should be before launching. Sure, there are benefits with that. I won't deny that. But we did miss the possibility of using the dissatisfaction generated by the Monica incident to our advantage. This may not be very helpful now, but I think it's worth mentioning.